sometimes one lens will do, sometimes you're stuck without the "right" lens and have to make do with what you brought.

sometimes your shoulder hurts from all the extra and now too-obviously useless trinkets you brought to carry around all day

and on all too rare an occasion (for me anyway) you were perfectly outfitted for the shoot

but sometimes I'm really happy with my RX-1, it's perfect

now someone is saying that if you spent $2800 on a single lens camera you need therapy. Bet many here have spent more than that on just one lens they will use less than they would a 35mm fixed lens exquisite camera.

Must be something that causes folks to rail on about other's choices. If M4/3 suits you, an RX-1 isn't for you in the first place...

... (But I still think that if anyone truly suffers from having to choose which prime lens to buy, or which to carry, some therapy might help more than spending $2,800 on a 35mm f/2 lens with integral "choice prevention device".)

You must be a polygamist then. As you know, marriage is the ultimate "choice prevention device."

Another expensive fixed lens camera: The Rolleiflex 2.8 FX. Back in the days when they were mainstream, the Rolleis were still expensive.

The Hasselblad SWC is not made anymore, but used ones are pretty pricey.

I used a Plaubel Makina with a fixed Nikkor 80mm lens for many years with great satisfaction. It had some of the benefits of the RX-1: IQ, size, weight, quiet shutter. It folded up into a darned compact package.

And I wouldn't pay the kind of money that a Rollei TLR or Plaubel go for now either. But that's me. Not when I can get a Yashicmat for a fraction of the price or an entire Mamiya C-series TLR and lenses for much less (past owner of a C220 and C330, not at the same time, and 4 lenses), or a Fuji GW670 (which I'm waiting for delivery of), or one of the other Fuji fixed lens MF rangefinders.

But I hope you realize that my questions are specifically and exclusively about the claimed virtues of having a lens that is permanently fixed to the camera body, not about carrying only a single lens of a single fixed focal length. So do you have any comment on that issue?

BJL,The advantages of a fixed-lens camera as opposed to carrying just one interchangeable lens of fixed focal length, could be better lens/sensor quality, less weight and bulk of the system, and to a lesser extent the freedom from any annoying surprises in respect of blotches of dust that might appear on the sensor.

I personally would place image resolution at the top of the list of advantages, with the weight advantage as a bonus. However, for me personally, the advantages of the greater flexibility of an interchangeable zoom lens far outweigh the advantages of either an interchangeable prime lens or a fixed lens of fixed focal length.

Up to a point, I'm willing to tolerate the additional weight for the benefits of the greater flexibility. When I next go travelling on one of my photographic tours, I shall probably carry two cameras, each with a zoom lens attached, giving me a choice of focal lengths ranging from 24mm to 600mm with no gaps nor need to change lenses, ie. the equivalent of a single 25x zoom. I find I can handle multiple choices with great ease. It probably comes with maturity.

Agreed on the possible technical advantages, though in all your examples, the advantage is compared to SLR alternatives, with their disadvantage of having a mirror box that interferes with optimal wide-angle lens design. Bring on the mirror-free 36x24mm systems with well-implemented live view!

(But I still think that if anyone truly suffers from having to choose which prime lens to buy, or which to carry, some therapy might help more than spending $2,800 on a 35mm f/2 lens with integral "choice prevention device".)

There will still be a size advantage with a fixed lens camera, even without a mirrorbox, because you can make really large, rear elements that are placed very close to the sensor. The rear element of the RX1 is probably the largest one would ever see in 135 format, and it is very close to the sensor. Have you seen how large the NEX 24/1.8 and Fuji X 23/1.4 are, and they're only for aps-c format?

An interchangeable version of the RX1's lens would have to be either much larger or not as good of a performer across the field. Trade offs.

How can Sony justify charging nearly $3k for P&S camera? Yes, I know it has a full-frame sensor. But it has a fixed lens and no viewfinder. You have to pony up another $600 for the companion finder (others are available for less). Does this make sense to anyone?

I'm not sure what would classify the RX1 as a point and shoot. I essentially sold all of my digital gear in favor of the RX1, including my M9+35/2 ASPH. I've come to actually prefer the modular nature of the RX1's viewfinder setup, and here's why:

- Amazingly, I find that a hotshoe OVF works really well, despite not being electronically connected. The camera's AF always locks on, and the metering is great (you can de-link metering from the shutter.) It works so well that I actually got rid of the EVF, because I never used it. BTW, I bought a Voigtlander OVF for a fraction of the price of the Sony/Zeiss, and it is more compact. I REALLY like it, and I find that my keeper rate is no worse than my X100s' OVF was.

- As an OVF user, I don't have to deal with a built-in EVF that is in the way, and it also won't date the camera so quickly. New hotshoe-based EVFs will potentially keep the camera up to date down the road.

- If you do like an EVF, the tilt feature is great. I used to own a NEX-5N and a NEX-7, and I actually preferred the modular, tilting EVF of the 5N much of the time.

- When I do occasionally use the LCD, I don't have to shoot it at "arms length." I can just put my arms at my side, with my elbows tucked, and shoot it at about chin level maybe 7"-8" from my face. This is a very sturdy foundation for shooting. Of course, I would probably prefer a tilt lcd, but the sensor is already at the back of the camera, and that would probably add noticeable thickness to the camera body. The viewing angle of the current LCD is very good.

I find the RX1 to be a fantastic camera, and a relative bargain, since it replaced Leica gear that was $10K when new.

There will still be a size advantage with a fixed lens camera, even without a mirrorbox, because you can make really large, rear elements that are placed very close to the sensor. The rear element of the RX1 is probably the largest one would ever see in 135 format, and it is very close to the sensor. Have you seen how large the NEX 24/1.8 and Fuji X 23/1.4 are, and they're only for aps-c format?

An interchangeable version of the RX1's lens would have to be either much larger or not as good of a performer across the field. Trade offs.

Why does making the lens removable constrain the size and proximity of its elements vs the image sensor?

Why does making the lens removable constrain the size and proximity of its elements vs the image sensor?

-h

Making an interchangeable lens that has a rear element only a few millimeters from the sensor could easily cause damage if the lens was seated incorrectly, and the tolerances would be difficult to deal with. The rear element of the RX1 is so large that, in interchangeable form, the mount of the camera would have to be relatively huge.

That's the problem that the manufacturers are going to run into if Sony or Fuji ever try to make a FF camera with their current NEX/X mount. Without making the mount much larger, there will be mechanical interference problems that will essentially require lenses the size of the current FF lenses+adapters. There's a reason that the mounts and lenses of NEX and Fuji X are so relatively large, despite being designed for aps-c sensors. Same with m4/3. Ever noticed how large the mount is in relation to the sensor?

Of course, there is the Sony VG-900 with a FF sensor, but Sony didn't make any native lenses for it. You can squeeze a FF sensor in NEX's e-mount, but the lens design is the big problem to deal with if making a line of FF cameras (and that sensor performs terribly with Leica M wides.)

There are also multiple quite small MFT prime lenses with similar field of view and minimum f-stop like the Olympus 17/1.8 and Panasonic 20/1.7, so I am not quite sure why the Sony/Zeiss NEX 24/1.8 is so bulky.

(That Fujifilm X lens is one stop brighter at f/1.4, a substantially greater design challenge, so not a useful comparison.)

P. S. Seeing your latest reply, I agree that the current NEX mount is not suited to lenses with large rear elements that protrude behind the mount. In fact, I am skeptical that any 36x24mm format mirror-less system from Sony will use the same NEX mount.

On the other hand, there is a scaling advantage with a larger format. Instead of, for example, scaling the MFT mount up to double the diameter and double the depth for 36x24mm, the mount could be of the same depth (body still deep enough to hold stuff), and then it can have a less than doubled diameter while accommodating the same maximum angle for the incoming light cone. (I also suspect that backward compatibility with adaptor-mounted SLR lenses constrained the MFT and NEX lens mount designs.)

There are also multiple quite small MFT prime lenses with similar field of view and minimum f-stop like the Olympus 17/1.8 and Panasonic 20/1.7, so I am not quite sure why the Sony/Zeiss NEX 24/1.8 is so bulky.

(That Fujifilm X lens is one stop brighter at f/1.4, a substantially greater design challenge, so not a useful comparison.)

P. S. Seeing your latest reply, I agree that the current NEX mount is not suited to lenses with large rear elements that protrude behind the mount. In fact, I am skeptical that any 36x24mm format mirror-less system from Sony will use the same NEX mount.

I just sold the 35mm Summicron ASPH, and, yes, it has a zone B dip and isn't as flat across the field as the RX1. In fact, the 35/1.4 ASPH also has this dip. This is all not to mention that Leica has to deal with designing sensors with unusual microlenses to deal with their lenses, since the mount was originally designed for film.

You can't compare the size of lenses of like aperture on different formats and assume them to be equal. An f2.8 lens on a P&S camera would obviously be much smaller than an f2.8 lens on medium format, to speak in extreme terms.

You can't compare the size of lenses of like aperture on different formats and assume them to be equal. An f2.8 lens on a P&S camera would obviously be much smaller than an f2.8 lens on medium format, to speak in extreme terms.

What fails completely is comparing lenses of different minimum f-stop, where then designs have to be different.

A lot of the space is taken up with the electronics for autofocus and aperture in the m4/3 lenses (which Leica doesn't need to worry about, btw.) Either way, you have to design the lens mount to accommodate the largest potential lens, which is another advantage for the RX1, since it can be optimized for just one.

In terms of the different formats issue, relating to the complexity of the Fuji 23/1.4 design, that's my point. With the RX1, you get a much smaller package, the equivalent field of view, and a slightly faster equivalent aperture.

No matter how you slice it, a fixed lens design is going to have a noticeable size advantage over an interchangeable design, assuming you want the performance to be comparable. Fuji X100, Ricoh GR, RX1, etc. Are you saying that isn't the case?

No matter how you slice it, a fixed lens design is going to have a noticeable size advantage over an interchangeable design, assuming you want the performance to be comparable. Fuji X100, Ricoh GR, RX1, etc. Are you saying that isn't the case?

I agree that there is some size saving; it remains to see how much. From APS-C format mirrorless system versus fixed lens, it might be a matter of a centimeter here and 100g there, and if so, I doubt that many photographers serious enough to pay $2,800 for access to a single 35mm f/2 lens will be swayed by such modest savings in bulk.

A lot of the space is taken up with the electronics for autofocus and aperture in the m4/3 lenses ...

True, but that part does not increase so much in size when one scales up to larger format, and the same holds for the part of the lens mount that is electrical contacts and bayonet, around the optical opening.

I agree that there is some size saving; it remains to see how much. From APS-C format mirrorless system versus fixed lens, it might be a matter of a centimeter here and 100g there, and if so, I doubt that many photographers serious enough to pay $2,800 for access to a single 35mm f/2 lens will be swayed by such modest savings in bulk.

Why? Photographers sure spend a lot of money on a Leica M and 35/2 ASPH, which could also be considered a modest savings in bulk compared to something like a 6D and 35/2. Plus, we shouldn't underestimate how good the RX1's lens is.